It's well worth looking into if that kind of this interests you. What is important is that when you parry an attack in Dark Souls and then hit the riposte command, both the mob and the player's character will snap into the proper positions for the synced riposte animation. You can do this just fine in a single player environment but it doesn't work nearly so well in a a multiplayer setting.
I was thinking in the exact same video when I responded!!
There obviously will be some cross over with this - because it is more complex than that - but generally speaking the fact that Ashes has hybrid combat to me means it could well be the only game that has actual good PvE as well as actual good PvP.
I think pve allows people to choose the pace. Pvp puts you under stress and players needs downtime in the gameplay loop.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
There are two reasons action combat works better in single player games than in MMO's.
The first is that in a single player game, developers can account for the fact that only about 10%of the population are actually physically able to have the type of reactions a game like this needs in under 0.1 seconds. They can easily make it so a person with reactions of this type that take 0.25 or even 0.4 seconds are still able to beat the game.
In an MMO though, slow reactions get you killed. This basically immediately blocks people with more than 0.2 second reactions from playing at the top end in a purely action combat game.
This isn't trained reactions I am talking about either - it is the fastest some people are actually able to see a thing, process it and then react.
The second reason is that action combat doesn't perform very well when you have multiple people fighting the same target.
When you are fighting someone in an action game, and every move knocks the target back a bit and you move up to meet them, it feels responsive, impactful... good.
When you do that with others around, all you are doing g is pushing the target past your rogue as they was about to backstab it, or push the target out of range of your images, and move yourself out of range of your healers. Sure, one person may be having fun, but everyone else is just getting pissed off.
On the other hand, if your a tank playing an action combat game and you and your target are both stationary, you are probably not having a good time.
This is why action combat games tend to focus more on PvP, the bigger the focus on action combat, the bigger the focus on PvP
The idea of a pure action combat MMO with a PvE focus is almost laughable.
I'm on record as being pro-tab target combat, but there is no way I would play a single player game with that combat. I am pro-tab because I am pro-PvE, specifically top end PvE, and pure action combat simply isn't going to ever work there. A toned down action combat system (like ESO) could work in top end PvE, but even a BDO style action combat system won't work for 20+ player top end PvE.
This is the main reason tab target MMO'are always going to be more popular - it isn't the combat system, it is the fact that this is where the good PvE is at.
I could go on at length about how limits on people's reaction timesplays a part. Or how the fact that tab target is easy to get in but has a long tail to master it, while action is harder to get in to and then has almost no further depth to it also plays a part. But while both of these are factors, they pale in comparison to the fact that action combat is better for PvP, and tab is better for PvE - and most people will make a decision based on PvP/PvE before they even consider action/tab.
I think it's more complex than "action combat doesn't work in PvE content". After all, Monster Hunter World is almost entirely action combat PvE.
Oh, it absolutely is more complex than that - but you can say that about any discussion not at a PhD level.
I've not played Monster Hunter, so I don't know much about it's combat system. My understanding is that it is best described as "action combat lite", but I may well be wrong there.
That is also why ESO has some ok PvE content (being generous). It is action combat, but a very light version of it. All the things that conflict with PvE in action combat have basically been stripped out of it, and if it weren't for the free aiming in that game, it perhaps wouldn't be called action combat by anyone.
This is where I do think Ashes stands to do something other games haven't. Having a hybrid system means that people can build up a character for PvP, with all the action combat they want, and the movement, and impactfulness that they want. But then players can (and will) switch to a tab target based build for PvE content, in order to be in a position to be able to better work with 39 other players.
There obviously will be some cross over with this - because it is more complex than that - but generally speaking the fact that Ashes has hybrid combat to me means it could well be the only game that has actual good PvE as well as actual good PvP.
Regarding Monster Hunter World, when you are using melee weapons I would consider it to be purely action combat. However, there is lock-on targeting for ranged weapons which could be classed as tab target. One thing that I think helps MHW is that you are typically fighting against large creatures in small teams (2-5 people), and each weapon has a different role to play.
For example, if you are using the Hammer you will usually stand directly in front of the monsters bashing their heads in to stun them, whereas if you are using a greatsword you will likely be at the back attempting to cut off the monster's tail. Given how large the monsters are, this kind of design allows players to spread out and not get in each other's way during combat.
Of course, this is the theory behind it but not everyone who plays understands this. But then again can we blame the system for the player's incompetence?
I dont think Monster Hunter World, or Dauntless etc are good examples when it comes to mmorpgs.
Those games are small hub based mmorpgs where you only fight with a very small group and dont see anyone else.
Those type of games have their own place, but its not in the mmorpg genre.
Of course, this is the theory behind it but not everyone who plays understands this. But then again can we blame the system for the player's incompetence?
Never underestimate the power of players to blame their shortcomings on the game
Of course, this is the theory behind it but not everyone who plays understands this. But then again can we blame the system for the player's incompetence?
Never underestimate the power of players to blame their shortcomings on the game
This was basically the reply I was going to give.
It is seldom appropriate to blame a game if people don't understand, but that doesn't stop the people that don't understand from trying to do exactly that.
In terms of MHW (as the cool kids seem to call it), the way it seems designed circumvents the issues I see with action combat in a raid setting - but not in any way that can be carried over to an actual MMORPG raid.
With only 5 people against an opponent, there is little risk of player collision being an issue. With 20 melee characters in a raid of 40, that is going to be an issue.
With ranged combat essentially being tab target (probably where my understanding of the game being action lite comes from) the issue of the tank knocking the target all over the place is mostly taken out of the equation as well, though in an MMO, rogues would still take issue with it (as would mages in fights where being at max range is important).
In terms of it being more complex than just "action = PvR, tab = PvE", I can absolutely see action combat being fine for groups of 8. It is only when you get to 20 player raids that I see issues really starting to form (which, honestly, is the only PvE I really care about). What I don't see happening is a 40 player raid with pure action combat, without that action combat having to have had so much stripped out of it that it is barely recognizable.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@mcstackerson
There are two reasons action combat works better in single player games than in MMO's.
The first is that in a single player game, developers can account for the fact that only about 10%of the population are actually physically able to have the type of reactions a game like this needs in under 0.1 seconds. They can easily make it so a person with reactions of this type that take 0.25 or even 0.4 seconds are still able to beat the game.
In an MMO though, slow reactions get you killed. This basically immediately blocks people with more than 0.2 second reactions from playing at the top end in a purely action combat game.
This isn't trained reactions I am talking about either - it is the fastest some people are actually able to see a thing, process it and then react.
The second reason is that action combat doesn't perform very well when you have multiple people fighting the same target.
When you are fighting someone in an action game, and every move knocks the target back a bit and you move up to meet them, it feels responsive, impactful... good.
When you do that with others around, all you are doing g is pushing the target past your rogue as they was about to backstab it, or push the target out of range of your images, and move yourself out of range of your healers. Sure, one person may be having fun, but everyone else is just getting pissed off.
On the other hand, if your a tank playing an action combat game and you and your target are both stationary, you are probably not having a good time.
This is why action combat games tend to focus more on PvP, the bigger the focus on action combat, the bigger the focus on PvP.
The idea of a pure action combat MMO with a PvE focus is almost laughable.
I'm on record as being pro-tab target combat, but there is no way I would play a single player game with that combat. I am pro-tab because I am pro-PvE, specifically top end PvE, and pure action combat simply isn't going to ever work there. A toned down action combat system (like ESO) could work in top end PvE, but even a BDO style action combat system won't work for 20+ player top end PvE.
This is the main reason tab target MMO'are always going to be more popular - it isn't the combat system, it is the fact that this is where the good PvE is at.
I could go on at length about how limits on people's reaction timesplays a part. Or how the fact that tab target is easy to get in but has a long tail to master it, while action is harder to get in to and then has almost no further depth to it also plays a part. But while both of these are factors, they pale in comparison to the fact that action combat is better for PvP, and tab is better for PvE - and most people will make a decision based on PvP/PvE before they even consider action/tab.
On your reaction argument, I don't think it takes more time to react to things in an action game vs a tab game but if people really need more time to react to things, developers can give them more time. They are already tailoring the fight so you can react, if they need to give players more time to react then they can do it
My counter-argument is that I don't think it is the case that it requires someone to take more time to react in a tab game vs an action game.
I can think of two scenarios, one where you have to react to something your target is doing and one you have to react to what something else is doing.
If you are reacting to something your target is doing then in both free aim and tab system, all you need to do is press the button of the skill you want to react with or move. Neither system requires more out of the user.
If you are reacting to something you aren't targeting then in a tab system, you must look at your target, target them, and use the skill you want to use to react. the quickest thing you could do is have some kind of focus/assist macro set up to target and then press the button. Still two actions unless we are able to macro skills together, at which point you approach skill bar bloat which is something i'm against. I don't enjoy having 3+ buttons that do the same skill on different targets but that's me.
If you are reacting to another target in a free aim system then all you have to do is look at the target you are reacting to and press the button. Simply move the mouse and press the button. Designers can obviously make this more demanding if they want by tighting up aiming requirements but they can also make it relatively easy. It's one of the things i like about fee aim, you can create a variety of abilities that require different levels of skill to use. This adds extra depth to the combat that i enjoy.
Your second "push back" argument isn't an argument as that isn't necessary for an action/free aim system.
Free aim/action is about how you deliver your skills to your target.
It's cool if you like tab and prefer it but if you can't imagine action combat in a pve MMO then you don't have a good imagination.
Tab games aren't the most popular games. Old MMOs that use tab are the most popular MMOs but back to my argument, we don't have new tab MMOs coming out and succeeding. If tab was the recipe for success then we would see new ones coming out and succeeding but instead we are in a market where games seem to fail whether they are tab or not.
I still don't think your reaction argument is an argument as developers can tailor the fight. That said I'm also unsure if it's even true if it takes more time to react to something in the different systems. @noaani Message me if you want to put it to the test. I was thinking we could load up some different MMOs with both tab and action systems and get a feel for how long it takes to react to different situations. We could meet in the Ashes discord some time and play around.
It's cool if you like tab and prefer it but if you can't imagine action combat in a pve MMO then you don't have a good imagination.
Just for completions sake, I'll restate my opinion on this matter.
There are no action combat based MMO's that have successfully implemented more than 20 player raid content in to the game in a manner where the raid content itself is the goal - as opposed to the raid being there as a catalyst for PvP.
The above is a material fact, and is not really up for debate. My theory goes towards trying to explain this, and is as follows; action combat as proponents of action combat want it to be is not conductive to this type of content.
Developers wanting to implement these two things in to one game have to find a way to compromise. The first way they could look at this is to add somewhat interesting PvE content, but make the games action combat system essentially action combat lite (ESO). The second way is that they could attempt to keep the action combat system mostly in tact, but neuter the PvE content to the point where it becomes uninteresting to take on (Archeage). The third thing a developer could do is leave the action combat system essentially untouched, and basically not even bother with PvE content (BDO).
Now, you could attempt to prove this theory wrong, but that would be the wrong way to go about things. What you should be doing is providing another explination as to why action combat and raiding have never been successfully combined in one MMO - as even if you did disprove my above theory, the fact would still remain that these two things have never been successfully combined.
What I can say is that it is not a lack of demand from players of those games. My entire time in Archeage, there was a more consistent cry from players for actual PvE content than anything else. BDO players are always complaining that there is only one spot in the whole game that is worth PvE farming. Players want this kind of content, but game develoeprs have not managed to deliver it - for almost a decade now.
On your reaction argument, I don't think it takes more time to react to things in an action game vs a tab game but if people really need more time to react to things, developers can give them more time.
It doesn't need to take more time, you are completely correct in that.
However, most proponents of an action combat system would not like a system where player a player with faster reactions is not at a significant advantage. As a tab target proferred player, even I wouldn't advocate for this - it straight up isn't what action combat is about.
This is less about what is and is not possible and more about what proponents of action combat and tab combat want from each combat system type. Most action combat proponents would place player reactions as one of the most important aspect of action combat - you can't remove the need for this to be there and keep action combat proponents happy.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I feel like you are just taking me down pointless arguments but i'll bite.
A lot of MMOs have moved away from raids larger than 20 but even with that, this statement isn't true. Wildstar successfully implemented 40 man raids. Yes, the game ended up failing but it had the end game raiding was there and worked.
Guild wars 2 also has a lot of action mechanics and has large group pve content but i'm guessing that doesn't count because that content isn't necessarily the focus?
Action combat is not as hard as you think it is and at this point, more people probably have experience with action systems then tab systems.
They could just not neuter anything. Implement whatever pve content you think is hard and make any minor adjustments that are necessary.
The reason we haven't seen a lot of action MMOs with large group pve content is that we haven't seen a lot of MMOs recently. They were in style for a while but they are large investments and with the number of them that fail, big companies have stopped trying.
Just because game developers haven't created something yet doesn't mean it can't be created. Do you really lack the imagination to figure out how to translate mechanics from a tab game to an action setting? You are saying something is not possible, do you really believe no one will ever be able to do it?
But if you really think this is impossible then maybe we need to challenge the ashes devs to do the impossible. Are you saying that this is something they can't do? According to you, they would be doing the impossible if they did accomplish it.
Once again, I challenge you to meet me in discord and we can test your reaction speed argument. See if it really takes me more time to press a button in an action game over a tab game as well as explore how things are different. I was thinking of downloading Tera and ESO for the action game examples, do you have any other recommendations?
Here are some pros and cons that me and some friends discussed about Tab-Targeting versus Action Combat.
Action Combat Pros:
• Makes the player feel more in-grained into the game
• Requires a level of skill to Master a Class
• Works great for PvP and WvW content
• If done well, action combat could improve any game's animation system by creating stagger ( who doesn't want to see that their combo has altered the enemies animated state)
• Enemy bosses can truly be created with a diversified combat system
• Can really diversify gameplay for specific classes (Ex. Warriors play differently from Healers)
• Can easily help new players or veteran players decipher between whos good at the game and whos not.
Action Combat Cons:
• Really hard to balance skills across all classes; not only will the numbers behind skills need to balanced, but the animation itself could possibly need to change (just think about GW2's PvP system; currently its still in a state of mayhem)
• If not done well, Metas could be established, that could easily steamroll bosses
• In PvE regular mobs are easily steamrolled because the AI combat system doesnt account for a full set of skills (enemies can't regularly heal, interrupt, or perform special attacks because the teams might be limited in resources)
• Usually players have a hard time adapting to such a system
Tab-Targetting System Pros:
• It easies a new player in to a mmo
• It helps to clearly define roles
• It allows the player to play with robust customization in choosing skill trees
• Easier to balance
• Easier to recycle key animations
• Skills are more identifiable
• Resource Friendly
Tab-Targetting System Cons:
• Produces Rigor-Mortis and monotony
• Has there every been any good Tab-Targetting gameplay for PvP
• It can make any character feel like a carbon copy of another player (im not into Role Playing)
• In my experience, Tab-Targetting is too easy.
Im not a professional game developer and i really tried my best to be unbiased. My interest were piqued when Steven started talking about the Military node during Jahlon's livestream. If the military nodes kingship is decided upon with combat, do you really believe that Tab-Targetting will be utilized within that node system? How do you introduce skillful play into such a system?
Im not a professional game developer and i really tried my best to be unbiased. My interest were piqued when Steven started talking about the Military node during Jahlon's livestream. If the military nodes kingship is decided upon with combat, do you really believe that Tab-Targetting will be utilized within that node system? How do you introduce skillful play into such a system?
The bigger concern about Military Node and the method of selection is the fact AoC will have Hard Counters. So it will be difficult not to see an endless stream of Hard Counters taking the pole position. It is a good method of ensuring a constant change of government but it is bad balance overall. Given that balance will be based on small groups/groups it will be interesting to see how this translates in the actual game.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Im not a professional game developer and i really tried my best to be unbiased. My interest were piqued when Steven started talking about the Military node during Jahlon's livestream. If the military nodes kingship is decided upon with combat, do you really believe that Tab-Targetting will be utilized within that node system? How do you introduce skillful play into such a system?
The bigger concern about Military Node and the method of selection is the fact AoC will have Hard Counters. So it will be difficult not to see an endless stream of Hard Counters taking the pole position. It is a good method of ensuring a constant change of government but it is bad balance overall. Given that balance will be based on small groups/groups it will be interesting to see how this translates in the actual game.
To get by this, they have talked about giving candidates a "champion" that they will fight with. I think it's early in the planning stage so we don't have much but the idea will be players will all compete with the same "class" when fighting for control of the military node.
To get by this, they have talked about giving candidates a "champion" that they will fight with. I think it's early in the planning stage so we don't have much but the idea will be players will all compete with the same "class" when fighting for control of the military node.
Sounds excellent, mcstackerson: I would aim to be in a military node to be a bounty hunter, yet after seeing the GMs killing the Red Named people on the 4k Video I think Bounty Hunter will be pretty pointless. If I could compete in PvP for the leadership role in a Military Node by not being a Healer (My main will be a Cleric) then I would be very much interested. I hope the plans work out.
Im not a professional game developer and i really tried my best to be unbiased. My interest were piqued when Steven started talking about the Military node during Jahlon's livestream. If the military nodes kingship is decided upon with combat, do you really believe that Tab-Targetting will be utilized within that node system? How do you introduce skillful play into such a system?
The bigger concern about Military Node and the method of selection is the fact AoC will have Hard Counters. So it will be difficult not to see an endless stream of Hard Counters taking the pole position. It is a good method of ensuring a constant change of government but it is bad balance overall. Given that balance will be based on small groups/groups it will be interesting to see how this translates in the actual game.
To get by this, they have talked about giving candidates a "champion" that they will fight with. I think it's early in the planning stage so we don't have much but the idea will be players will all compete with the same "class" when fighting for control of the military node.
Im still not seeing a clear picture of this scenario. If the ultimate pvp goal is to end in a 1v1, what does the combat look like?
Its probably going to be some type of tourney that elects the new governor.
Intrepid is still developing the game, so im just gonna have some faith.
A lot of MMOs have moved away from raids larger than 20 but even with that, this statement isn't true. Wildstar successfully implemented 40 man raids. Yes, the game ended up failing but it had the end game raiding was there and worked.
A lot of games have, but this has coincided with games switching to a more action combat based combat system.
From about 2006 to 2012, a lot of MMO players complained that tab target PvP was essentially shit. This is a statement I completely agree with - tab target combat systems simple are not well suited to PvP.
This is a big part of the reason AAA MMO developers started even thinking about a different combat system, which is obviously where big budget action combat MMO's evolved from.
Your comment that MMO's have been moving away from raid content needs to be looked at in this context. The question then becomes - are these gam4es moving away from raid content because players no longer want raid content, or are they moving away from it because the games coming out over the last decade or so are not well suited to it?
This is a question I asked myself a while ago - and to me, the answer came in the fact that those games from 15 years ago are still quite popular, still recieving regular content additions. The main games I am talking about here are WoW, FFXIV, the two EQ games, LotRO (although I am not sure when this last one recieved any new content) and maybe a few others I am forgetting.
The question really does need to be asked - why? These are the same games people were playing when they complained that tab target doesn't work for PvP - a statement that players were absolutely right to make.
The answer that I came up with is that those games still offer by far the best PvE experience in any MMO, and so people still play them.
This becomes an objective truth when you play through the PvE content in any of these games (even WoW), and then move on to something like BDO and attempt to play the PvE content there.
This is what originally bought me to the question of - if PvE content in general is still so popular in these older games, why haven't the newer games attempted to make PvE content that is equally compelling?
I'm actually quite happy to drop the specific notion of raid content in this discussion (at least for now, I may bring it back up later), simply because no game with action combat has had compelling PvE content at any level.
So, a summary of events;
Players complained over several years that tab target MMO's were not great for PvP.
Developers gave players action combat MMO's that were better for PvP.
Tab target MMO's remained the most popular, due to compelling PvE content.
The next point in that list should be;
Developers put compelling PvE content in their action combat MMO's.
This has not happened.
The fact that you bought up GW2 is actually quite on point.
That game launched with a fairly ok action combat based system (not great, but what ever), but it also had no real PvE content other than events where the goal was to basically zerg the boss.
Players asked for more finesse in their PvE content, and so the develoeprs game it to them. What that meant though, is they had to then alter the combat system to give different classes specific and definitive roles in group content - something they hadn't needed to have before that point.
So, in order to add half way compelling PvE content (and it is only half way compelling) the developers had to gut out the action combat system, at least in part.
Just because game developers haven't created something yet doesn't mean it can't be created. Do you really lack the imagination to figure out how to translate mechanics from a tab game to an action setting? You are saying something is not possible, do you really believe no one will ever be able to do it?
Again, this isn't a case of "I can't see", this is a case of "multi-million dollar companies that have combined hundreds (or thousands) of years experience in game development haven't figured this out".
Imagine you were running a game developer that had an action combat game, and you saw that there are games from 15 years ago that are 10 times more popular than your game, because they have better PvE content.
The first thing you would do, without even needing to think about it, is look in to getting more compelling PvE content in to your game. This is not rocket surgery. This is a logical conslusion that all MMO develoeprs would have had to go through.
But if you really think this is impossible then maybe we need to challenge the ashes devs to do the impossible. Are you saying that this is something they can't do? According to you, they would be doing the impossible if they did accomplish it.
My theory, when expanded to Ashes, comes to the conclusion that Intrepid are aware of this whole situation.
This is why, rather than going action and promoting the PvP aspects, or going tab and promoting the PvE aspects, they are going both and giving players the option to decide for themselves.
I fully expect (and have said on these forums a number of times) that the average PvP build in Ashes will contain a higher percentage of action combat abilities than the average PvE build will - this is Intrepids solution, and I for one approve.
Once again, I challenge you to meet me in discord and we can test your reaction speed argument.
I straight up don't have time for games right now - the whole world situation at present is keeping me far too busy (most of my posting is done from work).
I would absolutely look at ESO if I were you. It is an example of an action combat system that attempted to be suited to PvE - and the results are bland, to say the least.
Im not a professional game developer and i really tried my best to be unbiased. My interest were piqued when Steven started talking about the Military node during Jahlon's livestream. If the military nodes kingship is decided upon with combat, do you really believe that Tab-Targetting will be utilized within that node system? How do you introduce skillful play into such a system?
The bigger concern about Military Node and the method of selection is the fact AoC will have Hard Counters. So it will be difficult not to see an endless stream of Hard Counters taking the pole position. It is a good method of ensuring a constant change of government but it is bad balance overall. Given that balance will be based on small groups/groups it will be interesting to see how this translates in the actual game.
To get by this, they have talked about giving candidates a "champion" that they will fight with. I think it's early in the planning stage so we don't have much but the idea will be players will all compete with the same "class" when fighting for control of the military node.
Im still not seeing a clear picture of this scenario. If the ultimate pvp goal is to end in a 1v1, what does the combat look like?
Its probably going to be some type of tourney that elects the new governor.
Intrepid is still developing the game, so im just gonna have some faith.
The current idea (last I heard) was that it will be a ffa arena. That way, it isn't just how good one player is at PvP, it also matters how many players that one person has that want them to win.
If you have a lot of backers, you are more likely to win in a ffa arena.
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@Jesforart literally everything you said about the pros and cons of action combat can be applied to tab target combat too.
Also can we please get away from this cliched "action combat is more skillful than tab target". It's not, never has been and never will be. The whole notion that tab target combat is easy to use is absolute rubbish. If it were so easy then why is there such a huge gap in performance between the best WoW players and everyone else?
@Jesforart literally everything you said about the pros and cons of action combat can be applied to tab target combat too.
Also can we please get away from this cliched "action combat is more skillful than tab target". It's not, never has been and never will be. The whole notion that tab target combat is easy to use is absolute rubbish. If it were so easy then why is there such a huge gap in performance between the best WoW players and everyone else?
Hi, I never said that Tab-Targetting was easy. I said that i personally find that Tab-Targetting is easier. Im sorry but i have to disagree with you. Action combat is just so much more engrossing. Play Gw2 and go fight the temple version of Balthazar the God, then try to picture that same fight with just Tab-Targetting. GW2 (pve) is the closest we will have get to combining Bloodborne with an MMO.
The reason why theres such a huge gap, is that WoW has been out for 10+ years. You will always have your noobs and your veterans with a game thats the same age as a small child.
GW2 has defined action combat. And i will not leave that game until something better comes out. After 7+ years, no one has outdone that game.
@Jesforart literally everything you said about the pros and cons of action combat can be applied to tab target combat too.
Also can we please get away from this cliched "action combat is more skillful than tab target". It's not, never has been and never will be. The whole notion that tab target combat is easy to use is absolute rubbish. If it were so easy then why is there such a huge gap in performance between the best WoW players and everyone else?
By any measure you use, action systems use more skill. In addition to timing and memorization, the hallmarks of tab, you have to add accuracy, and a higher degree of positioning. Also, there isn't really a big gap at all between the best WoW players and everyone else. They often have the benefits of a large organized guild for progression and supplies (flasks/feasts/gold for boes) but their actual outputs or sustain aren't that far ahead of everyone elses. Especially as time goes on, or when there's a gap in content.
GW2 has defined action combat. And i will not leave that game until something better comes out. After 7+ years, no one has outdone that game.
I used to have beautiful Sky Blue Plate Armour and a Vintage Style Rifle in Guild Wars 2. I sometimes wish I hadn't left Guild Wars 2 but when the combat changed I lost the spark I once had for Guild Wars 2. I used to also love jumping over enemy heads in PvP with my Rogue. I do miss those days but the Guild Wars 2 of those days died.
GW2 has defined action combat. And i will not leave that game until something better comes out. After 7+ years, no one has outdone that game.
I used to have beautiful Sky Blue Plate Armour and a Vintage Style Rifle in Guild Wars 2. I sometimes wish I hadn't left Guild Wars 2 but when the combat changed I lost the spark I once had for Guild Wars 2. I used to also love jumping over enemy heads in PvP with my Rogue. I do miss those days but the Guild Wars 2 of those days died.
You need to retry it again, because the combat is nothing close to dull. Especially after they added Specializations. Arenanet created the Stars Wars equivalent of Jedi in GW2 called a Holosmith. You transform into a light-saber holographic warrior, that can morph its lightsaber into double pistols, and a ground-shattering hammer.
The Elementalist has a Specialization called a Weaver, that has a skill called Self-Weave that lets you combine all the elements within yourself to become a Super Saiyan version of your character, thats twice as strong. The Super Saiyan glow is even represented.
Its been absolute years since i touched GW2. GW2 sits next to my other CD Variants of other MMOs. I've got quite a collection but have played other MMOs on steam and digital downloads. Ashes will only be digital I believe.
I left Star Wars Galaxies when the combat changed too. The problem is due to my Aspergers I get attached to set ways and when the ways are set changes can knock me off course and I lose interest. It's why I didn't opt for Alpha 1 testing. I'd rather get attached when its clearer what I'm getting attached to. I have a lot of experience in MMOs but as I say, my experience is a cross-section of MMOs, not been attached to an MMO for longer than 5 years. I did also play WoW but when WoW changed I left WoW. Its a burden I live with but I play hard and work hard. I'm not too worried about Ashes because Ashes are upfront with what they want to achieve.
I don't tend to go back to an MMO i have left because I insulate the experience and move on. I'm trying to make some bank so i can play ashes uninterrupted. I've appreciated the delays because I can make more bank before Ashes is published.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
A lot of MMOs have moved away from raids larger than 20 but even with that, this statement isn't true. Wildstar successfully implemented 40 man raids. Yes, the game ended up failing but it had the end game raiding was there and worked.
A lot of games have, but this has coincided with games switching to a more action combat based combat system.
From about 2006 to 2012, a lot of MMO players complained that tab target PvP was essentially shit. This is a statement I completely agree with - tab target combat systems simple are not well suited to PvP.
This is a big part of the reason AAA MMO developers started even thinking about a different combat system, which is obviously where big budget action combat MMO's evolved from.
Your comment that MMO's have been moving away from raid content needs to be looked at in this context. The question then becomes - are these gam4es moving away from raid content because players no longer want raid content, or are they moving away from it because the games coming out over the last decade or so are not well suited to it?
This is a question I asked myself a while ago - and to me, the answer came in the fact that those games from 15 years ago are still quite popular, still recieving regular content additions. The main games I am talking about here are WoW, FFXIV, the two EQ games, LotRO (although I am not sure when this last one recieved any new content) and maybe a few others I am forgetting.
The question really does need to be asked - why? These are the same games people were playing when they complained that tab target doesn't work for PvP - a statement that players were absolutely right to make.
The answer that I came up with is that those games still offer by far the best PvE experience in any MMO, and so people still play them.
This becomes an objective truth when you play through the PvE content in any of these games (even WoW), and then move on to something like BDO and attempt to play the PvE content there.
This is what originally bought me to the question of - if PvE content in general is still so popular in these older games, why haven't the newer games attempted to make PvE content that is equally compelling?
I'm actually quite happy to drop the specific notion of raid content in this discussion (at least for now, I may bring it back up later), simply because no game with action combat has had compelling PvE content at any level.
So, a summary of events;
Players complained over several years that tab target MMO's were not great for PvP.
Developers gave players action combat MMO's that were better for PvP.
Tab target MMO's remained the most popular, due to compelling PvE content.
The next point in that list should be;
Developers put compelling PvE content in their action combat MMO's.
This has not happened.
The fact that you bought up GW2 is actually quite on point.
That game launched with a fairly ok action combat based system (not great, but what ever), but it also had no real PvE content other than events where the goal was to basically zerg the boss.
Players asked for more finesse in their PvE content, and so the develoeprs game it to them. What that meant though, is they had to then alter the combat system to give different classes specific and definitive roles in group content - something they hadn't needed to have before that point.
So, in order to add half way compelling PvE content (and it is only half way compelling) the developers had to gut out the action combat system, at least in part.
Just because game developers haven't created something yet doesn't mean it can't be created. Do you really lack the imagination to figure out how to translate mechanics from a tab game to an action setting? You are saying something is not possible, do you really believe no one will ever be able to do it?
Again, this isn't a case of "I can't see", this is a case of "multi-million dollar companies that have combined hundreds (or thousands) of years experience in game development haven't figured this out".
Imagine you were running a game developer that had an action combat game, and you saw that there are games from 15 years ago that are 10 times more popular than your game, because they have better PvE content.
The first thing you would do, without even needing to think about it, is look in to getting more compelling PvE content in to your game. This is not rocket surgery. This is a logical conslusion that all MMO develoeprs would have had to go through.
But if you really think this is impossible then maybe we need to challenge the ashes devs to do the impossible. Are you saying that this is something they can't do? According to you, they would be doing the impossible if they did accomplish it.
My theory, when expanded to Ashes, comes to the conclusion that Intrepid are aware of this whole situation.
This is why, rather than going action and promoting the PvP aspects, or going tab and promoting the PvE aspects, they are going both and giving players the option to decide for themselves.
I fully expect (and have said on these forums a number of times) that the average PvP build in Ashes will contain a higher percentage of action combat abilities than the average PvE build will - this is Intrepids solution, and I for one approve.
Once again, I challenge you to meet me in discord and we can test your reaction speed argument.
I straight up don't have time for games right now - the whole world situation at present is keeping me far too busy (most of my posting is done from work).
I would absolutely look at ESO if I were you. It is an example of an action combat system that attempted to be suited to PvE - and the results are bland, to say the least.
I'm pretty sure developers have said that they moved away from 40 man raids because of the challenges of organizing that many people at one time so I don't think it has anything to do with action combat. While I prefer large 40 man raids, this makes sense to me as it is hard to maintain a large enough guild to do that size of content.
I feel like you have dodged my Wildstar comment. It had action combat and 40 man raids. Here is a video of a fight but there are more that can be found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDuFUjCpjSA
Tab targeting is just a combat system and doesn't equate to more compelling pve content. Being able to click on a target and have all your abilities go to said target doesn't make the content compelling. Everquest 2 also doesn't have the best graphics. Is that another aspect of the game they need to mimic to make compelling pve content?
Maybe it would help if you defined compelling pve content. What do you think is required for pve content to be compelling?
To me, making tab better at one type of gameplay and action better at another isn't giving players the option to play what they want, it is instead forcing them to play a playstyle based off the type of content they are doing.
I guess we will be able to see if action combat works in large scale pve content when the game comes out.
1
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@Jesforart literally everything you said about the pros and cons of action combat can be applied to tab target combat too.
Also can we please get away from this cliched "action combat is more skillful than tab target". It's not, never has been and never will be. The whole notion that tab target combat is easy to use is absolute rubbish. If it were so easy then why is there such a huge gap in performance between the best WoW players and everyone else?
By any measure you use, action systems use more skill. In addition to timing and memorization, the hallmarks of tab, you have to add accuracy, and a higher degree of positioning. Also, there isn't really a big gap at all between the best WoW players and everyone else. They often have the benefits of a large organized guild for progression and supplies (flasks/feasts/gold for boes) but their actual outputs or sustain aren't that far ahead of everyone elses. Especially as time goes on, or when there's a gap in content.
I would argue that tab target combat relies just as heavily on positioning as action combat does. In a tab target system you can't rely purely on reactionary movement to keep you safe. Dodge back and forth all you like and you'll still get hit. The way you avoid getting hit is by playing in and out of range and using line-of-sight.
That's the key here. When you limit a player's ability to dodge attacks, the player has to think a lot more and plan ahead, rather than relying on reflexes to win. Comparing action combat to tab target combat in terms of difficulty is like comparing StarCraft 2 to Chess.
I would agree with you that action combat requires more MECHANICAL skill than tab target, but there is more to skill than raw mechanics.
And yes there is a big difference between good and bad WoW players. You only have to look at boss rankings and logs to see it. Players with the same item level gear can have vastly different performance based on their skill.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@Jesforart literally everything you said about the pros and cons of action combat can be applied to tab target combat too.
Also can we please get away from this cliched "action combat is more skillful than tab target". It's not, never has been and never will be. The whole notion that tab target combat is easy to use is absolute rubbish. If it were so easy then why is there such a huge gap in performance between the best WoW players and everyone else?
By any measure you use, action systems use more skill. In addition to timing and memorization, the hallmarks of tab, you have to add accuracy, and a higher degree of positioning. Also, there isn't really a big gap at all between the best WoW players and everyone else. They often have the benefits of a large organized guild for progression and supplies (flasks/feasts/gold for boes) but their actual outputs or sustain aren't that far ahead of everyone elses. Especially as time goes on, or when there's a gap in content.
I would argue that tab target combat relies just as heavily on positioning as action combat does. In a tab target system you can't rely purely on reactionary movement to keep you safe. Dodge back and forth all you like and you'll still get hit. The way you avoid getting hit is by playing in and out of range and using line-of-sight.
That's the key here. When you limit a player's ability to dodge attacks, the player has to think a lot more and plan ahead, rather than relying on reflexes to win. Comparing action combat to tab target combat in terms of difficulty is like comparing StarCraft 2 to Chess.
I would agree with you that action combat requires more MECHANICAL skill than tab target, but there is more to skill than raw mechanics.
And yes there is a big difference between good and bad WoW players. You only have to look at boss rankings and logs to see it. Players with the same item level gear can have vastly different performance based on their skill.
Just because you are trying to dodge doesn't mean you will dodge all abilities in an action game. Maybe you are a god but I don't think most people can just stand out in the open dodging and expect to never be hit.
The tactics of LOS or outranging your opponent are also used in action games and give similar results to what they do in tab games.
Dodging in an action system is just another aspect of combat that someone can get better at but it doesn't guarantee victory. Just because they have this option doesn't mean they have to think less. If you are losing an engagement in the open, you are still going to do the same thing you would do in a tab system and try to disengage. Yes, you can focus more on dodging but that doesn't mean you aren't going to be trying to get some distance and jump behind some cover.
I'm pretty sure developers have said that they moved away from 40 man raids because of the challenges of organizing that many people at one time so I don't think it has anything to do with action combat.
They have, but that is in relation to why a game like WoW went from 40 player raids to 20 player raids.
It has no bearing at all on why action combat games have no raid content, nor any compelling PvE content at all. And as I said, I am quite happy in this discussion to just talk about compelling PvE in general, without actually restricting it to raid content.
Action combat games just don't have enjoyable PvE content.
My understanding of combat in Wildstar was that it was essentially optional action combat, rather than all action combat, all the time.
Both my understanding of the game - and the video above - suggest that the game is more a tab target game than an action one. Just because the developers wants to call it an action game, doesn't mean it is fully action combat.
Going purely on the above video, the game looks even less action combat based than ESO.
Tab targeting is just a combat system and doesn't equate to more compelling pve content.
I'm not necessarily saying this is the case. You absolutely could take a tab target game and simply make players have to aim their abilities and call it action combat. This wouldn't be a good idea, but it absolutely is possible to do.
What I am saying is that all the things that player expect with an action combat system, such a combat system isn't overly well suited to cooperative PvE situations, and the more people you add to that situation, the less suitable it is.
A short list of some of the action combat issues that I am talking about (this is not all of them, but is a list of some of the oldest, as well as some newer);
Mobility is right at the top of the list of things that players wanting an action combat system would deem necessary, yet are unconductive to cooperative PvE situations.
Action combat games tend to not pigeonhole classes/builds in to single roles, which is something compelling cooperative PvE content needs.
Action combat games (at least over the last 5 years or so) have some form of player collision, which adds further issues to cooperative PvE situations.
Spell/ability collision is also appearing more and more in action combat games - which again, the more players present, the more of an issue this is.
As I've said, these things aren't strictly necessary in order to call a game action combat. What they are, are things that players expect to see in full action combat games.
Developers can strip some of these aspects out of their game to make it better suited to PvE content. However, this is that whole thing about a compromise between a full action combat system and a combat system that is suitable for PvE that I have been talking about.
They have a choice between either a full, proper action combat system, or the ability to add in cooperative PvE content in a way that players won't hate.
By any measure you use, action systems use more skill.
I actually don't disagree with this, to be honest.
However, the converse of this is that by any measure you use, tab target games use more brains.
In both cases there are games that would be able to prove each point incorrect, but in terms of generalizing, both of these comments are correct. It is also fairly easy to add a high skill ceiling to an action game without alienating fans of action combat, and it is fairly easy to add a higher knowledge ceiling to a tab target game without alienating fans of tab target games.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm pretty sure developers have said that they moved away from 40 man raids because of the challenges of organizing that many people at one time so I don't think it has anything to do with action combat.
They have, but that is in relation to why a game like WoW went from 40 player raids to 20 player raids.
It has no bearing at all on why action combat games have no raid content, nor any compelling PvE content at all. And as I said, I am quite happy in this discussion to just talk about compelling PvE in general, without actually restricting it to raid content.
Action combat games just don't have enjoyable PvE content.
My understanding of combat in Wildstar was that it was essentially optional action combat, rather than all action combat, all the time.
Both my understanding of the game - and the video above - suggest that the game is more a tab target game than an action one. Just because the developers wants to call it an action game, doesn't mean it is fully action combat.
Going purely on the above video, the game looks even less action combat based than ESO.
Tab targeting is just a combat system and doesn't equate to more compelling pve content.
I'm not necessarily saying this is the case. You absolutely could take a tab target game and simply make players have to aim their abilities and call it action combat. This wouldn't be a good idea, but it absolutely is possible to do.
What I am saying is that all the things that player expect with an action combat system, such a combat system isn't overly well suited to cooperative PvE situations, and the more people you add to that situation, the less suitable it is.
A short list of some of the action combat issues that I am talking about (this is not all of them, but is a list of some of the oldest, as well as some newer);
Mobility is right at the top of the list of things that players wanting an action combat system would deem necessary, yet are unconductive to cooperative PvE situations.
Action combat games tend to not pigeonhole classes/builds in to single roles, which is something compelling cooperative PvE content needs.
Action combat games (at least over the last 5 years or so) have some form of player collision, which adds further issues to cooperative PvE situations.
Spell/ability collision is also appearing more and more in action combat games - which again, the more players present, the more of an issue this is.
As I've said, these things aren't strictly necessary in order to call a game action combat. What they are, are things that players expect to see in full action combat games.
Developers can strip some of these aspects out of their game to make it better suited to PvE content. However, this is that whole thing about a compromise between a full action combat system and a combat system that is suitable for PvE that I have been talking about.
They have a choice between either a full, proper action combat system, or the ability to add in cooperative PvE content in a way that players won't hate.
More then just wow developers have said this and as I said, it's not hard to see why the industry went in this direction.
In the wildstar video, I'm pretty sure every skill you saw the player use was aimed. Most skills were aimed in Wildstar.
Ok, even if action combat games tend to do those things, I don't think any of that is necessary and some of those aren't unique to action combat. I also don't think making the game tab suddenly means you wont have any of those. From the beginning, they have always said they wanted combat to be more mobile and the initial pax/Alpha 0 tab combat was this way.
My point is, if those are things you don't like, you should argue against those things. As you said, those aren't necessarily parts of action combat. It's miss-guided to argue against action combat because you think it will prevent those things from becoming aspects of combat. All of those were already part of the combat system before the action side was ever introduced.
I also don't find collision an issue and for me, it enhances the combat experience. Yes, collision makes it harder to zerg content down with a high number of players. It forces you to be more coordinated. Combine this with the fact that it's silly that 40+ people can stand in the same space, I think it makes the game better.
How does being able to move through other players and enemies make the pve content more compelling? I feel the opposite.
More then just wow developers have said this and as I said, it's not hard to see why the industry went in this direction.
In the wildstar video, I'm pretty sure every skill you saw the player use was aimed. Most skills were aimed in Wildstar.
Ok, even if action combat games tend to do those things, I don't think any of that is necessary and some of those aren't unique to action combat. I also don't think making the game tab suddenly means you wont have any of those. From the beginning, they have always said they wanted combat to be more mobile and the initial pax/Alpha 0 tab combat was this way.
My point is, if those are things you don't like, you should argue against those things. As you said, those aren't necessarily parts of action combat. It's miss-guided to argue against action combat because you think it will prevent those things from becoming aspects of combat. All of those were already part of the combat system before the action side was ever introduced.
I also don't find collision an issue and for me, it enhances the combat experience. Yes, collision makes it harder to zerg content down with a high number of players. It forces you to be more coordinated. Combine this with the fact that it's silly that 40+ people can stand in the same space, I think it makes the game better.
How does being able to move through other players and enemies make the pve content more compelling? I feel the opposite.
I still don't think you are getting the point. Honestly, you don't seem to be even close to getting it.
I am not complaining about anything - I am stating an observation.
PvE content in games with an action combat focus is not compelling, yet games without action combat have compelling PvE, and larger numbers.
This means that there must be a business reason to put compelling PvE in to games where it is possible to put it in, yet games with action combat do not have it. The only logical conclusion is that action games can not sustain compelling PvE content.
As I've said, this is still a theory, though it is unlikely to be one either you or I could prove or disprove (not sure about you, but I don't have the resources to make an MMO to prove a theory).
Again, I am not complaining about anything, nor am I asking any game developer to do anythign different. I am absolutely sure that most game develoeprs are doing the absolute best they are able to do for their games - which does nothing other than further add to the theory that games without compelling PvE content simply can't sustain compelling PvE content.
But again, that's fine. Players that want compelling PvE content (the majority of the MMO audience, according to subscription numbers) have other games to play that have that compelling PvE content. People that are more interested in an action combat system also have that option. Again, this all seems perfectly fine to me.
In terms of Ashes, I am not saying they should do anything different. In fact, other than their stance on combat trackers, I have not said that I think they should do anything different, on any specific topic. I actually like the way Intrepid are doing their combat system (or at least the theory behind it).
As such, I have nothing to argue. All I have to put across is the observation that games with action combat do not have compelling PvE content, and that I can see a link there.
While I started this out in terms of large scale raiding, this applies to all levels of PvE. The video you posted from Wildstar is not compelling PvE content, even if it is 40 players (though I assume it is a lower end encounter - or at least, I hope it is).
In terms of collision being an issue in raiding - when you have a 40 player raid (as Ashes will), it is fairly normal for around half of them to be melee based in one way or another. Obviously, most mobs will not be able to sustain 20 players around them in melee range, let alone the fact that mobs in actual compelling PvE content do things like have short range directional AoE's that see most players wanting to stay within a smaller area around the mob - usually either directly behind or to the side. Not only does adding player collision means you can't have that mechanic in PvE content which will slightly lower how compelling you can make it, it will also mean you can't have that many melee characters in a raid. A melee character in a raid that can't reach their target is literally less useful than an empty raid slot - an empty raid slot will do the same amount of damage, but won't eat up heals.
While not having this one thing on one encounter may not seem like much, when you combine that with other things that other aspects of action combat mean you can't have (if your tank keeps moving the mob, you can't have AoE's that force casters to stay at max spell range, nor can you have rogues that backstab) means that there are more and more things stripped away from what is possible to add to PvE encounters. And again, that isn't all that much in the scale of one encounter, but when you talk about several hundred PvE encounters over several years of content cycles, those things that action combat take away from PvE really do add up in a way where there is significantly less variety in what is possible in PvE content.
a lot going on in this tread:
summary that i picked at is:
people think active blocking is good
dodge rolling, weapon swapping, respectful cooldowns and mp costs (which i'd say comes closer to balance issues than combat issues anyway)
both action and tab players seem to want to flex their combat system as 'harder to use' or 'more skill-ful' for some reason.
i've seen lots of games and ideas mentioned in this list and honestly GW2 really does seem like the best representation of a combat system people want.
i will state now that i believe close to 80% of GW2s combat-related issues are created, not by the combat system itself. GW2's competitive content (raiding, arena pvp and world v world (sort of open world zerg/roam pvp)) is plagued by terrible balance and hardcore meta-slaving issuse and has been for a very long time now. i quit GW2 about 3 and a bit years ago and played Black Desert for those 3 years.
people are right that Black Desert or action combat in general (bless up the Tera **** weeb crew) FEELS like it takes more skill. i think this is in general false from the perspective of positioning, cooldown management and things like LoS, i think Tab has that +1 every time since its all they have. But tab in pvp is bland, stale and boring simply becuase of the pace for myself. Watching WoW arenas of people running around a pillar for 10 mins to get the kill just has me sleeping. While in general action combat forces a faster pace and pressures your reaction time more. i would like to note that from a bdo perspective the action combat is amazing until a point simply due to the game being a power fest where you hit a certain point of 'strength' and the combat goes from say 1 or 2 full combos to kill (<180ap) to 1 combo roughly (220ap+) to 1 or 2 skills (280ap+) and this creep also ruins any real enjoyment from largescale which they fix with a 'you cannot die for the duration' buff. this sucks. its that simple. BDO combat as an example is horrific for anything but small scale, 1-5 man groups.
so i moved back to GW2 about 5 weeks ago now. the summary, the devs seem to just buff the classes they play and gave up on chasing balance. sadly they seem to ignore their playerbase's top 5% who might be able to give them fair opinions on balance and all that so GW2 itself isnt that good. BUT. from a simple combat breakdown, its the best for an all-round game imo.
again, it has the active blocking based on your equipped weapon (shield or greatsword as an example) the elite speciialisations from the expansions tried to give each class a distinct role - i note tried since viability is killed by balance as well as player mindset towards something that isn't the 'to the figure' META.
IMO, get combat like GW2, put a team that actually cares about the state of their high-end content behind it.
my 2 cents on raiding like 40man etc,
just engage 40 people mechanically
Comments
I was thinking in the exact same video when I responded!!
I think pve allows people to choose the pace. Pvp puts you under stress and players needs downtime in the gameplay loop.
Regarding Monster Hunter World, when you are using melee weapons I would consider it to be purely action combat. However, there is lock-on targeting for ranged weapons which could be classed as tab target. One thing that I think helps MHW is that you are typically fighting against large creatures in small teams (2-5 people), and each weapon has a different role to play.
For example, if you are using the Hammer you will usually stand directly in front of the monsters bashing their heads in to stun them, whereas if you are using a greatsword you will likely be at the back attempting to cut off the monster's tail. Given how large the monsters are, this kind of design allows players to spread out and not get in each other's way during combat.
Of course, this is the theory behind it but not everyone who plays understands this. But then again can we blame the system for the player's incompetence?
Those games are small hub based mmorpgs where you only fight with a very small group and dont see anyone else.
Those type of games have their own place, but its not in the mmorpg genre.
0dbea148-8cb8-4711-ba90-eb0864e93b5f
Never underestimate the power of players to blame their shortcomings on the game
This was basically the reply I was going to give.
It is seldom appropriate to blame a game if people don't understand, but that doesn't stop the people that don't understand from trying to do exactly that.
In terms of MHW (as the cool kids seem to call it), the way it seems designed circumvents the issues I see with action combat in a raid setting - but not in any way that can be carried over to an actual MMORPG raid.
With only 5 people against an opponent, there is little risk of player collision being an issue. With 20 melee characters in a raid of 40, that is going to be an issue.
With ranged combat essentially being tab target (probably where my understanding of the game being action lite comes from) the issue of the tank knocking the target all over the place is mostly taken out of the equation as well, though in an MMO, rogues would still take issue with it (as would mages in fights where being at max range is important).
In terms of it being more complex than just "action = PvR, tab = PvE", I can absolutely see action combat being fine for groups of 8. It is only when you get to 20 player raids that I see issues really starting to form (which, honestly, is the only PvE I really care about). What I don't see happening is a 40 player raid with pure action combat, without that action combat having to have had so much stripped out of it that it is barely recognizable.
On your reaction argument, I don't think it takes more time to react to things in an action game vs a tab game but if people really need more time to react to things, developers can give them more time. They are already tailoring the fight so you can react, if they need to give players more time to react then they can do it
My counter-argument is that I don't think it is the case that it requires someone to take more time to react in a tab game vs an action game.
I can think of two scenarios, one where you have to react to something your target is doing and one you have to react to what something else is doing.
If you are reacting to something your target is doing then in both free aim and tab system, all you need to do is press the button of the skill you want to react with or move. Neither system requires more out of the user.
If you are reacting to something you aren't targeting then in a tab system, you must look at your target, target them, and use the skill you want to use to react. the quickest thing you could do is have some kind of focus/assist macro set up to target and then press the button. Still two actions unless we are able to macro skills together, at which point you approach skill bar bloat which is something i'm against. I don't enjoy having 3+ buttons that do the same skill on different targets but that's me.
If you are reacting to another target in a free aim system then all you have to do is look at the target you are reacting to and press the button. Simply move the mouse and press the button. Designers can obviously make this more demanding if they want by tighting up aiming requirements but they can also make it relatively easy. It's one of the things i like about fee aim, you can create a variety of abilities that require different levels of skill to use. This adds extra depth to the combat that i enjoy.
Your second "push back" argument isn't an argument as that isn't necessary for an action/free aim system.
Free aim/action is about how you deliver your skills to your target.
It's cool if you like tab and prefer it but if you can't imagine action combat in a pve MMO then you don't have a good imagination.
Tab games aren't the most popular games. Old MMOs that use tab are the most popular MMOs but back to my argument, we don't have new tab MMOs coming out and succeeding. If tab was the recipe for success then we would see new ones coming out and succeeding but instead we are in a market where games seem to fail whether they are tab or not.
I still don't think your reaction argument is an argument as developers can tailor the fight. That said I'm also unsure if it's even true if it takes more time to react to something in the different systems. @noaani Message me if you want to put it to the test. I was thinking we could load up some different MMOs with both tab and action systems and get a feel for how long it takes to react to different situations. We could meet in the Ashes discord some time and play around.
Just for completions sake, I'll restate my opinion on this matter.
There are no action combat based MMO's that have successfully implemented more than 20 player raid content in to the game in a manner where the raid content itself is the goal - as opposed to the raid being there as a catalyst for PvP.
The above is a material fact, and is not really up for debate. My theory goes towards trying to explain this, and is as follows; action combat as proponents of action combat want it to be is not conductive to this type of content.
Developers wanting to implement these two things in to one game have to find a way to compromise. The first way they could look at this is to add somewhat interesting PvE content, but make the games action combat system essentially action combat lite (ESO). The second way is that they could attempt to keep the action combat system mostly in tact, but neuter the PvE content to the point where it becomes uninteresting to take on (Archeage). The third thing a developer could do is leave the action combat system essentially untouched, and basically not even bother with PvE content (BDO).
Now, you could attempt to prove this theory wrong, but that would be the wrong way to go about things. What you should be doing is providing another explination as to why action combat and raiding have never been successfully combined in one MMO - as even if you did disprove my above theory, the fact would still remain that these two things have never been successfully combined.
What I can say is that it is not a lack of demand from players of those games. My entire time in Archeage, there was a more consistent cry from players for actual PvE content than anything else. BDO players are always complaining that there is only one spot in the whole game that is worth PvE farming. Players want this kind of content, but game develoeprs have not managed to deliver it - for almost a decade now.
It doesn't need to take more time, you are completely correct in that.
However, most proponents of an action combat system would not like a system where player a player with faster reactions is not at a significant advantage. As a tab target proferred player, even I wouldn't advocate for this - it straight up isn't what action combat is about.
This is less about what is and is not possible and more about what proponents of action combat and tab combat want from each combat system type. Most action combat proponents would place player reactions as one of the most important aspect of action combat - you can't remove the need for this to be there and keep action combat proponents happy.
A lot of MMOs have moved away from raids larger than 20 but even with that, this statement isn't true. Wildstar successfully implemented 40 man raids. Yes, the game ended up failing but it had the end game raiding was there and worked.
Guild wars 2 also has a lot of action mechanics and has large group pve content but i'm guessing that doesn't count because that content isn't necessarily the focus?
Action combat is not as hard as you think it is and at this point, more people probably have experience with action systems then tab systems.
They could just not neuter anything. Implement whatever pve content you think is hard and make any minor adjustments that are necessary.
The reason we haven't seen a lot of action MMOs with large group pve content is that we haven't seen a lot of MMOs recently. They were in style for a while but they are large investments and with the number of them that fail, big companies have stopped trying.
Just because game developers haven't created something yet doesn't mean it can't be created. Do you really lack the imagination to figure out how to translate mechanics from a tab game to an action setting? You are saying something is not possible, do you really believe no one will ever be able to do it?
But if you really think this is impossible then maybe we need to challenge the ashes devs to do the impossible. Are you saying that this is something they can't do? According to you, they would be doing the impossible if they did accomplish it.
Once again, I challenge you to meet me in discord and we can test your reaction speed argument. See if it really takes me more time to press a button in an action game over a tab game as well as explore how things are different. I was thinking of downloading Tera and ESO for the action game examples, do you have any other recommendations?
Inspire people with thay awesome combat system
Action Combat Pros:
• Makes the player feel more in-grained into the game
• Requires a level of skill to Master a Class
• Works great for PvP and WvW content
• If done well, action combat could improve any game's animation system by creating stagger ( who doesn't want to see that their combo has altered the enemies animated state)
• Enemy bosses can truly be created with a diversified combat system
• Can really diversify gameplay for specific classes (Ex. Warriors play differently from Healers)
• Can easily help new players or veteran players decipher between whos good at the game and whos not.
Action Combat Cons:
• Really hard to balance skills across all classes; not only will the numbers behind skills need to balanced, but the animation itself could possibly need to change (just think about GW2's PvP system; currently its still in a state of mayhem)
• If not done well, Metas could be established, that could easily steamroll bosses
• In PvE regular mobs are easily steamrolled because the AI combat system doesnt account for a full set of skills (enemies can't regularly heal, interrupt, or perform special attacks because the teams might be limited in resources)
• Usually players have a hard time adapting to such a system
Tab-Targetting System Pros:
• It easies a new player in to a mmo
• It helps to clearly define roles
• It allows the player to play with robust customization in choosing skill trees
• Easier to balance
• Easier to recycle key animations
• Skills are more identifiable
• Resource Friendly
Tab-Targetting System Cons:
• Produces Rigor-Mortis and monotony
• Has there every been any good Tab-Targetting gameplay for PvP
• It can make any character feel like a carbon copy of another player (im not into Role Playing)
• In my experience, Tab-Targetting is too easy.
Im not a professional game developer and i really tried my best to be unbiased. My interest were piqued when Steven started talking about the Military node during Jahlon's livestream. If the military nodes kingship is decided upon with combat, do you really believe that Tab-Targetting will be utilized within that node system? How do you introduce skillful play into such a system?
The bigger concern about Military Node and the method of selection is the fact AoC will have Hard Counters. So it will be difficult not to see an endless stream of Hard Counters taking the pole position. It is a good method of ensuring a constant change of government but it is bad balance overall. Given that balance will be based on small groups/groups it will be interesting to see how this translates in the actual game.
To get by this, they have talked about giving candidates a "champion" that they will fight with. I think it's early in the planning stage so we don't have much but the idea will be players will all compete with the same "class" when fighting for control of the military node.
Sounds excellent, mcstackerson: I would aim to be in a military node to be a bounty hunter, yet after seeing the GMs killing the Red Named people on the 4k Video I think Bounty Hunter will be pretty pointless. If I could compete in PvP for the leadership role in a Military Node by not being a Healer (My main will be a Cleric) then I would be very much interested. I hope the plans work out.
Im still not seeing a clear picture of this scenario. If the ultimate pvp goal is to end in a 1v1, what does the combat look like?
Its probably going to be some type of tourney that elects the new governor.
Intrepid is still developing the game, so im just gonna have some faith.
From about 2006 to 2012, a lot of MMO players complained that tab target PvP was essentially shit. This is a statement I completely agree with - tab target combat systems simple are not well suited to PvP.
This is a big part of the reason AAA MMO developers started even thinking about a different combat system, which is obviously where big budget action combat MMO's evolved from.
Your comment that MMO's have been moving away from raid content needs to be looked at in this context. The question then becomes - are these gam4es moving away from raid content because players no longer want raid content, or are they moving away from it because the games coming out over the last decade or so are not well suited to it?
This is a question I asked myself a while ago - and to me, the answer came in the fact that those games from 15 years ago are still quite popular, still recieving regular content additions. The main games I am talking about here are WoW, FFXIV, the two EQ games, LotRO (although I am not sure when this last one recieved any new content) and maybe a few others I am forgetting.
The question really does need to be asked - why? These are the same games people were playing when they complained that tab target doesn't work for PvP - a statement that players were absolutely right to make.
The answer that I came up with is that those games still offer by far the best PvE experience in any MMO, and so people still play them.
This becomes an objective truth when you play through the PvE content in any of these games (even WoW), and then move on to something like BDO and attempt to play the PvE content there.
This is what originally bought me to the question of - if PvE content in general is still so popular in these older games, why haven't the newer games attempted to make PvE content that is equally compelling?
I'm actually quite happy to drop the specific notion of raid content in this discussion (at least for now, I may bring it back up later), simply because no game with action combat has had compelling PvE content at any level.
So, a summary of events;
Players complained over several years that tab target MMO's were not great for PvP.
Developers gave players action combat MMO's that were better for PvP.
Tab target MMO's remained the most popular, due to compelling PvE content.
The next point in that list should be;
Developers put compelling PvE content in their action combat MMO's.
This has not happened.
The fact that you bought up GW2 is actually quite on point.
That game launched with a fairly ok action combat based system (not great, but what ever), but it also had no real PvE content other than events where the goal was to basically zerg the boss.
Players asked for more finesse in their PvE content, and so the develoeprs game it to them. What that meant though, is they had to then alter the combat system to give different classes specific and definitive roles in group content - something they hadn't needed to have before that point.
So, in order to add half way compelling PvE content (and it is only half way compelling) the developers had to gut out the action combat system, at least in part. Again, this isn't a case of "I can't see", this is a case of "multi-million dollar companies that have combined hundreds (or thousands) of years experience in game development haven't figured this out".
Imagine you were running a game developer that had an action combat game, and you saw that there are games from 15 years ago that are 10 times more popular than your game, because they have better PvE content.
The first thing you would do, without even needing to think about it, is look in to getting more compelling PvE content in to your game. This is not rocket surgery. This is a logical conslusion that all MMO develoeprs would have had to go through.
My theory, when expanded to Ashes, comes to the conclusion that Intrepid are aware of this whole situation.
This is why, rather than going action and promoting the PvP aspects, or going tab and promoting the PvE aspects, they are going both and giving players the option to decide for themselves.
I fully expect (and have said on these forums a number of times) that the average PvP build in Ashes will contain a higher percentage of action combat abilities than the average PvE build will - this is Intrepids solution, and I for one approve. I straight up don't have time for games right now - the whole world situation at present is keeping me far too busy (most of my posting is done from work).
I would absolutely look at ESO if I were you. It is an example of an action combat system that attempted to be suited to PvE - and the results are bland, to say the least.
If you have a lot of backers, you are more likely to win in a ffa arena.
Also can we please get away from this cliched "action combat is more skillful than tab target". It's not, never has been and never will be. The whole notion that tab target combat is easy to use is absolute rubbish. If it were so easy then why is there such a huge gap in performance between the best WoW players and everyone else?
Hi, I never said that Tab-Targetting was easy. I said that i personally find that Tab-Targetting is easier. Im sorry but i have to disagree with you. Action combat is just so much more engrossing. Play Gw2 and go fight the temple version of Balthazar the God, then try to picture that same fight with just Tab-Targetting. GW2 (pve) is the closest we will have get to combining Bloodborne with an MMO.
The reason why theres such a huge gap, is that WoW has been out for 10+ years. You will always have your noobs and your veterans with a game thats the same age as a small child.
GW2 has defined action combat. And i will not leave that game until something better comes out. After 7+ years, no one has outdone that game.
By any measure you use, action systems use more skill. In addition to timing and memorization, the hallmarks of tab, you have to add accuracy, and a higher degree of positioning. Also, there isn't really a big gap at all between the best WoW players and everyone else. They often have the benefits of a large organized guild for progression and supplies (flasks/feasts/gold for boes) but their actual outputs or sustain aren't that far ahead of everyone elses. Especially as time goes on, or when there's a gap in content.
I used to have beautiful Sky Blue Plate Armour and a Vintage Style Rifle in Guild Wars 2. I sometimes wish I hadn't left Guild Wars 2 but when the combat changed I lost the spark I once had for Guild Wars 2. I used to also love jumping over enemy heads in PvP with my Rogue. I do miss those days but the Guild Wars 2 of those days died.
You need to retry it again, because the combat is nothing close to dull. Especially after they added Specializations. Arenanet created the Stars Wars equivalent of Jedi in GW2 called a Holosmith. You transform into a light-saber holographic warrior, that can morph its lightsaber into double pistols, and a ground-shattering hammer.
The Elementalist has a Specialization called a Weaver, that has a skill called Self-Weave that lets you combine all the elements within yourself to become a Super Saiyan version of your character, thats twice as strong. The Super Saiyan glow is even represented.
When's the last time you looked at the game?
I left Star Wars Galaxies when the combat changed too. The problem is due to my Aspergers I get attached to set ways and when the ways are set changes can knock me off course and I lose interest. It's why I didn't opt for Alpha 1 testing. I'd rather get attached when its clearer what I'm getting attached to. I have a lot of experience in MMOs but as I say, my experience is a cross-section of MMOs, not been attached to an MMO for longer than 5 years. I did also play WoW but when WoW changed I left WoW. Its a burden I live with but I play hard and work hard. I'm not too worried about Ashes because Ashes are upfront with what they want to achieve.
I don't tend to go back to an MMO i have left because I insulate the experience and move on. I'm trying to make some bank so i can play ashes uninterrupted. I've appreciated the delays because I can make more bank before Ashes is published.
I'm pretty sure developers have said that they moved away from 40 man raids because of the challenges of organizing that many people at one time so I don't think it has anything to do with action combat. While I prefer large 40 man raids, this makes sense to me as it is hard to maintain a large enough guild to do that size of content.
I feel like you have dodged my Wildstar comment. It had action combat and 40 man raids. Here is a video of a fight but there are more that can be found:
Tab targeting is just a combat system and doesn't equate to more compelling pve content. Being able to click on a target and have all your abilities go to said target doesn't make the content compelling. Everquest 2 also doesn't have the best graphics. Is that another aspect of the game they need to mimic to make compelling pve content?
Maybe it would help if you defined compelling pve content. What do you think is required for pve content to be compelling?
To me, making tab better at one type of gameplay and action better at another isn't giving players the option to play what they want, it is instead forcing them to play a playstyle based off the type of content they are doing.
I guess we will be able to see if action combat works in large scale pve content when the game comes out.
I would argue that tab target combat relies just as heavily on positioning as action combat does. In a tab target system you can't rely purely on reactionary movement to keep you safe. Dodge back and forth all you like and you'll still get hit. The way you avoid getting hit is by playing in and out of range and using line-of-sight.
That's the key here. When you limit a player's ability to dodge attacks, the player has to think a lot more and plan ahead, rather than relying on reflexes to win. Comparing action combat to tab target combat in terms of difficulty is like comparing StarCraft 2 to Chess.
I would agree with you that action combat requires more MECHANICAL skill than tab target, but there is more to skill than raw mechanics.
And yes there is a big difference between good and bad WoW players. You only have to look at boss rankings and logs to see it. Players with the same item level gear can have vastly different performance based on their skill.
Just because you are trying to dodge doesn't mean you will dodge all abilities in an action game. Maybe you are a god but I don't think most people can just stand out in the open dodging and expect to never be hit.
The tactics of LOS or outranging your opponent are also used in action games and give similar results to what they do in tab games.
Dodging in an action system is just another aspect of combat that someone can get better at but it doesn't guarantee victory. Just because they have this option doesn't mean they have to think less. If you are losing an engagement in the open, you are still going to do the same thing you would do in a tab system and try to disengage. Yes, you can focus more on dodging but that doesn't mean you aren't going to be trying to get some distance and jump behind some cover.
It has no bearing at all on why action combat games have no raid content, nor any compelling PvE content at all. And as I said, I am quite happy in this discussion to just talk about compelling PvE in general, without actually restricting it to raid content.
Action combat games just don't have enjoyable PvE content.
My understanding of combat in Wildstar was that it was essentially optional action combat, rather than all action combat, all the time.
Both my understanding of the game - and the video above - suggest that the game is more a tab target game than an action one. Just because the developers wants to call it an action game, doesn't mean it is fully action combat.
Going purely on the above video, the game looks even less action combat based than ESO.
I'm not necessarily saying this is the case. You absolutely could take a tab target game and simply make players have to aim their abilities and call it action combat. This wouldn't be a good idea, but it absolutely is possible to do.
What I am saying is that all the things that player expect with an action combat system, such a combat system isn't overly well suited to cooperative PvE situations, and the more people you add to that situation, the less suitable it is.
A short list of some of the action combat issues that I am talking about (this is not all of them, but is a list of some of the oldest, as well as some newer);
Mobility is right at the top of the list of things that players wanting an action combat system would deem necessary, yet are unconductive to cooperative PvE situations.
Action combat games tend to not pigeonhole classes/builds in to single roles, which is something compelling cooperative PvE content needs.
Action combat games (at least over the last 5 years or so) have some form of player collision, which adds further issues to cooperative PvE situations.
Spell/ability collision is also appearing more and more in action combat games - which again, the more players present, the more of an issue this is.
As I've said, these things aren't strictly necessary in order to call a game action combat. What they are, are things that players expect to see in full action combat games.
Developers can strip some of these aspects out of their game to make it better suited to PvE content. However, this is that whole thing about a compromise between a full action combat system and a combat system that is suitable for PvE that I have been talking about.
They have a choice between either a full, proper action combat system, or the ability to add in cooperative PvE content in a way that players won't hate.
However, the converse of this is that by any measure you use, tab target games use more brains.
In both cases there are games that would be able to prove each point incorrect, but in terms of generalizing, both of these comments are correct. It is also fairly easy to add a high skill ceiling to an action game without alienating fans of action combat, and it is fairly easy to add a higher knowledge ceiling to a tab target game without alienating fans of tab target games.
More then just wow developers have said this and as I said, it's not hard to see why the industry went in this direction.
In the wildstar video, I'm pretty sure every skill you saw the player use was aimed. Most skills were aimed in Wildstar.
Ok, even if action combat games tend to do those things, I don't think any of that is necessary and some of those aren't unique to action combat. I also don't think making the game tab suddenly means you wont have any of those. From the beginning, they have always said they wanted combat to be more mobile and the initial pax/Alpha 0 tab combat was this way.
My point is, if those are things you don't like, you should argue against those things. As you said, those aren't necessarily parts of action combat. It's miss-guided to argue against action combat because you think it will prevent those things from becoming aspects of combat. All of those were already part of the combat system before the action side was ever introduced.
I also don't find collision an issue and for me, it enhances the combat experience. Yes, collision makes it harder to zerg content down with a high number of players. It forces you to be more coordinated. Combine this with the fact that it's silly that 40+ people can stand in the same space, I think it makes the game better.
How does being able to move through other players and enemies make the pve content more compelling? I feel the opposite.
I am not complaining about anything - I am stating an observation.
PvE content in games with an action combat focus is not compelling, yet games without action combat have compelling PvE, and larger numbers.
This means that there must be a business reason to put compelling PvE in to games where it is possible to put it in, yet games with action combat do not have it. The only logical conclusion is that action games can not sustain compelling PvE content.
As I've said, this is still a theory, though it is unlikely to be one either you or I could prove or disprove (not sure about you, but I don't have the resources to make an MMO to prove a theory).
Again, I am not complaining about anything, nor am I asking any game developer to do anythign different. I am absolutely sure that most game develoeprs are doing the absolute best they are able to do for their games - which does nothing other than further add to the theory that games without compelling PvE content simply can't sustain compelling PvE content.
But again, that's fine. Players that want compelling PvE content (the majority of the MMO audience, according to subscription numbers) have other games to play that have that compelling PvE content. People that are more interested in an action combat system also have that option. Again, this all seems perfectly fine to me.
In terms of Ashes, I am not saying they should do anything different. In fact, other than their stance on combat trackers, I have not said that I think they should do anything different, on any specific topic. I actually like the way Intrepid are doing their combat system (or at least the theory behind it).
As such, I have nothing to argue. All I have to put across is the observation that games with action combat do not have compelling PvE content, and that I can see a link there.
While I started this out in terms of large scale raiding, this applies to all levels of PvE. The video you posted from Wildstar is not compelling PvE content, even if it is 40 players (though I assume it is a lower end encounter - or at least, I hope it is).
In terms of collision being an issue in raiding - when you have a 40 player raid (as Ashes will), it is fairly normal for around half of them to be melee based in one way or another. Obviously, most mobs will not be able to sustain 20 players around them in melee range, let alone the fact that mobs in actual compelling PvE content do things like have short range directional AoE's that see most players wanting to stay within a smaller area around the mob - usually either directly behind or to the side. Not only does adding player collision means you can't have that mechanic in PvE content which will slightly lower how compelling you can make it, it will also mean you can't have that many melee characters in a raid. A melee character in a raid that can't reach their target is literally less useful than an empty raid slot - an empty raid slot will do the same amount of damage, but won't eat up heals.
While not having this one thing on one encounter may not seem like much, when you combine that with other things that other aspects of action combat mean you can't have (if your tank keeps moving the mob, you can't have AoE's that force casters to stay at max spell range, nor can you have rogues that backstab) means that there are more and more things stripped away from what is possible to add to PvE encounters. And again, that isn't all that much in the scale of one encounter, but when you talk about several hundred PvE encounters over several years of content cycles, those things that action combat take away from PvE really do add up in a way where there is significantly less variety in what is possible in PvE content.
summary that i picked at is:
i've seen lots of games and ideas mentioned in this list and honestly GW2 really does seem like the best representation of a combat system people want.
i will state now that i believe close to 80% of GW2s combat-related issues are created, not by the combat system itself. GW2's competitive content (raiding, arena pvp and world v world (sort of open world zerg/roam pvp)) is plagued by terrible balance and hardcore meta-slaving issuse and has been for a very long time now. i quit GW2 about 3 and a bit years ago and played Black Desert for those 3 years.
people are right that Black Desert or action combat in general (bless up the Tera **** weeb crew) FEELS like it takes more skill. i think this is in general false from the perspective of positioning, cooldown management and things like LoS, i think Tab has that +1 every time since its all they have. But tab in pvp is bland, stale and boring simply becuase of the pace for myself. Watching WoW arenas of people running around a pillar for 10 mins to get the kill just has me sleeping. While in general action combat forces a faster pace and pressures your reaction time more. i would like to note that from a bdo perspective the action combat is amazing until a point simply due to the game being a power fest where you hit a certain point of 'strength' and the combat goes from say 1 or 2 full combos to kill (<180ap) to 1 combo roughly (220ap+) to 1 or 2 skills (280ap+) and this creep also ruins any real enjoyment from largescale which they fix with a 'you cannot die for the duration' buff. this sucks. its that simple. BDO combat as an example is horrific for anything but small scale, 1-5 man groups.
so i moved back to GW2 about 5 weeks ago now. the summary, the devs seem to just buff the classes they play and gave up on chasing balance. sadly they seem to ignore their playerbase's top 5% who might be able to give them fair opinions on balance and all that so GW2 itself isnt that good. BUT. from a simple combat breakdown, its the best for an all-round game imo.
again, it has the active blocking based on your equipped weapon (shield or greatsword as an example) the elite speciialisations from the expansions tried to give each class a distinct role - i note tried since viability is killed by balance as well as player mindset towards something that isn't the 'to the figure' META.
IMO, get combat like GW2, put a team that actually cares about the state of their high-end content behind it.
my 2 cents on raiding like 40man etc,
just engage 40 people mechanically